Cities Keep Swapping Who Runs Their Schools — Is Governance the Real Fix?

Across major U.S. cities, debates are resurfacing over who should govern public schools: mayors, elected boards, or hybrid arrangements. With falling enrollment, looming budget cuts, school closures and intense political pressure, municipal leaders and community activists are renewing arguments about which system best serves students and families — yet evidence that one model consistently produces better results is thin.

In New York City, the incoming mayor has signaled interest in scaling back mayoral authority and experimenting with “co-governance.” But details remain sparse, and similar political changes in other cities have produced mixed outcomes. Boston’s mayor campaigned for a majority-elected board and later vetoed such a change; Chicago is transitioning to a fully elected board while the mayor continues to exert influence; and Los Angeles and Miami-Dade have long operated under elected boards.

Local battles and mixed evidence

In Indianapolis, more students now attend charter schools than district-run schools. The mayor already authorizes charters separately from the elected Indianapolis Public Schools board. A proposed law to dissolve the district failed this year, but a state advisory panel chaired by Mayor Joe Hogsett is studying how to share buildings, transportation and services. Local groups are now debating whether the mayor should gain stronger appointment power over the school board.

In Cleveland, decades of mayoral control and charter growth under the Cleveland Plan have coincided with steep declines in traditional district enrollment. Mayor Justin Bibb’s aggressive school-closure proposals have prompted teachers and community members to call for restoring elected board representation. Opponents of mayoral control argue concentrated power can feel undemocratic and disconnected from families; supporters say mayoral authority enables decisive action when difficult consolidations and closures are required.

Why changing structures often falls short

Scholars and advocates caution that governance structure alone rarely cures deep, systemic problems. Jonathan Collins, a political science and education professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, observes that repeatedly changing governance is like “changing clothes without taking a bath” — cosmetic tinkering that leaves underlying issues intact. Historical reforms such as charter expansion, school closures and accountability initiatives have been championed under both mayoral and elected-board regimes, producing gains in some areas and unintended consequences in others.

Political dynamics complicate matters. Governance fights often reflect racial and partisan fault lines: business leaders, community organizations, teachers unions and state legislatures jockey for influence. In many locales, state governments have stepped in or constrained local choice, further muddying accountability.

Democracy, accountability and turnout

Both appointed and elected systems have democratic drawbacks. School-board elections routinely see low turnout and can attract candidates who are not representative of families served by the district. Research shows many board members spend little time on instruction-specific issues once in office. Vladimir Kogan, a political scientist at Ohio State University, notes that voters often prioritize taxes, property values or partisan signaling over academic performance when choosing board candidates.

At the same time, mayoral control does not guarantee public approval. The example of former Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty — who oversaw high-profile reforms and improvements under Chancellor Michelle Rhee but lost re-election amid backlash over disruptions — highlights the political risks of disruptive change. Visibility of mayors can create accountability, but only if voters are motivated by educational outcomes.

Examples of shifting local practice

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who campaigned for a majority-elected board, later defended mayoral authority on the grounds that stability and central capacity mattered for facilities, mental health and academic support. New York’s 2002 move to mayoral control under Michael Bloomberg centralized appointment power, expanded charters and prioritized accountability — and some metrics improved while other policies proved controversial.

Chicago’s recent school-board elections show how mixed systems can preserve mayoral influence even as seats become elected: union-backed candidates won several elected seats, but mayoral appointees still hold decisive sway through 2027. In Cleveland and Indianapolis, debates now center on whether stronger mayoral powers would enable necessary reforms or simply concentrate decision-making away from families and neighborhood leaders.

Paths forward

Many experts argue the solution is not a binary choice between mayors and elected boards but a redesigned governance model that preserves strong central capacity while expanding meaningful local voice. Possible reforms include staggered or mixed appointment/election systems, shorter mayoral extensions tied to performance measures, stronger training for board members on budgets and academic data, and investments to boost civic participation in both mayoral and board elections.

Ultimately, improving outcomes will require more than institutional reshuffling: it calls for clearer goals, better training for decision-makers, stronger community engagement beyond low-turnout elections, and policy designs that balance citywide scale with neighborhood accountability.

Key voices: Jonathan Collins, Vladimir Kogan, Aaron Churchill, Sarah Hodge, Keri Rodrigues, Scott Levy, Jonathan Greenberg.